2009 (7) TMI 120

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e of Rs.500/- from every outgoing international passenger. When the appeals were taken up, counsel for the respondent submitted that the appeals are delayed and contended that by virtue of decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise v. Hongo India (P) Ltd. reported in [2009 (236) E.L.T. 417 (S.C.) = 2009 (5) SCC 791], the High Court has no power to condone delay in the appeal filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act. However, Standing Counsel Sri. John Varghese appearing for the appellants contended that the judgment of the Supreme Court is got over through the amendment now proposed with retrospective effect granting authority to the High Court to condone delay in filing appeal, if the High Court is o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... by virtue of the inclusive definition respondent-company owning and managing the Airport answers the description of Airports Authority. The next question to be considered is whether respondent is liable for service tax on the users fee collected from outgoing international passengers. As already noted, no users fee is collected from any domestic passenger or any international passenger landing at the Airport from a foreign destination. The amount charged is a flat figure of Rs.500/- from every outgoing international passenger. The respondent's case that the amount collected is not for any service rendered is obvious because services rendered to passengers are almost similar in nature and there is no reason why international passengers ....